Southerton Answers FARMS & FAIR

[Corky Wallace]

Hi Smac,

I'm not trying to intentionally rehash, but to offer an example of a person of reason & faith having concerns about, or being "uncomfortable" with an ideological tenet: I think I remember Dr. Peterson stating a similar sentiment about the blacks & priesthood policy, that he was uncomfortable with the policy (my words in paraphrase of what he stated)).

Other faithful LDS have expressed curiosity / concern about certain points here & there, and have expressed a sort of resignation that they may not be understanding the concept well enough, and are relying on faith to sustain them until "further information" clears up the matter from the standpoint of reason.

Others (such as myself) take the same set of ingredients and arrive at a different conclusion - in this case, the blacks/priesthood policy was fundamentally wrong.

Who is wrong & who is right in these judgements is a subjective matter.

(What does all this mean? I don't know, and apologies if I've jumped in out of context.)

[smac97]

> I'm not trying to intentionally rehash, but to offer an example of a person of reason & faith having concerns about, or being "uncomfortable" with an ideological tenet: I think I remember Dr. Peterson stating a similar sentiment about the blacks & priesthood policy, that he was uncomfortable with the policy (my words in paraphrase of what he stated)).

==Okay. This seems like a good example. But how would you answer my second question to Cinepro: If these defects are only "apparent" (that is, "appearing as such but not necessarily so"), how can you establish their validity and, in turn, the error of those who have faith in spite of them?

> Other faithful LDS have expressed curiosity / concern about certain points here & there, and have expressed a sort of resignation that they may not be understanding the concept well enough, and are relying on faith to sustain them until "further information" clears up the matter from the standpoint of reason.

==Yes, but I'm trying to understand what those "certain points" are, whether they are objectively (and not just "apparently") false, and whether they are substantial or inconsequential. I'm not comfortable coming to concrete conclusions about vague, unidentified "points."

> Others (such as myself) take the same set of ingredients and arrive at a different conclusion - in this case, the blacks/priesthood policy was fundamentally wrong.

==I'm okay with that conclusion. I'm quite willing to admit you may be right. It is interesting, though, that my belief system can accomodate this, but yours can/could not.

> Who is wrong & who is right in these judgements is a subjective matter.

==I agree. I wonder, though, if cinepro agrees.

-Smac

[Matt Andrews]

Daniel wrote:

I don't think it should surprise anybody to learn that, in my opinion, both Tal Bachman and Bob McCue have reached erroneous decisions and conclusions regarding the gospel, and that, accordingly, I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there. And defects are inescapably negative.

So your position, or hunch, is that thier reasoning is defective? Isn't leaving because of "reasoning" (defective or not) an intellectual reason?

It would seem to me to be the very essence of intellectual apostasy: the individual reasons through his belief in the Church, and comes to the conclusion that he doesn't think it stands up to scrutiny. Erroneous or not, this certainly seems to fit the definition of 'intellectual apostasy'.

I don't know if anything can be described as 'purely intellectual', but if so, reasoning would seem to be it.

Perhaps this is where the confusion about your comments comes in. On the thread where you discussed your 'hunch', (or rather, pointed out that you had a hunch, but were not discussing it), you had previously said:

I'm not sure if I know of a single case of purely intellectual apostasy.

Which is what prompted MC to point out that your statement implied non-intellectual reasons for the actions of any case you know of. He pointed out two such cases, perhaps hoping that you would amend your blanket statement to reflect your true position.

I suggest that, if you want to continue to be (mis)understood to be ascribing non-intellectual reasons as a significant part of every apostasy you know of, you could equivocate about the qualifier 'purely', making your statement so narrow as to be meaningless. Or you could talk about how when you said 'intellectual' reasons, you weren't including 'reasoning' as 'intellectual'.

If, further, you want to keep giving the mistaken impression that the non-intellectual reasons you are taking about are serious sin, you could be sure to preface your remarks with some kind of comment about how apostasy due to serious sin 'isn't exactly a rare occurance', as you did your original comments about your hunch.

If you want everyone to get off your back you could try:

"I apologize if my posts implied that I believe no one leaves my church for intellectual reasons. What I meant to say is that no one leaves for intellectual reasons I agree with. I also think that we humans are complicated people and that no decision is technically speaking, purely intellectual, but this is splitting hairs, and I may actually know of cases where the apostasy is, for all intents and purposes, intellectual."

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=6804&hl=hunch

[Corky Wallace]

Hi Smac,

Don't know if you're in Utah, but today is an incredible day, weather wise, at least in the SLC area. Just a brief diversion.

I like your notation style & may mimic it to make my responses more readable.

[smac] Okay. This seems like a good example. But how would you answer my second question to Cinepro: If these defects are only "apparent" (that is, "appearing as such but not necessarily so"), how can you establish their validity and, in turn, the error of those who have faith in spite of them?

>> Good question. As a liberal, I might choose to use a different word than "defect", which implies a superiority / inferiority hierarchy, but it might result in my stumbling around verbally trying to make a point. *smile* (Having some fun, here - gotta laugh at myself, too!)

Rather than using binary labels of correct & incorrect, maybe we start by identifying areas that we might find objectionable, and then build from there to derive relative "rightness" or "wrongness", definitely subjective values, in great part.

Perhaps another good area of discussion would be the issue of homosexuality. (I'm not opening that topic up here, per se, but offering it as another example of an area of investigation among us, a part of the set of "certain points" I alluded to before.)

[smac] I'm okay with that conclusion. I'm quite willing to admit you may be right. It is interesting, though, that my belief system can accomodate this, but yours can/could not.

>> This is an interesting point, one I'll ponder as I drive home here in a few minutes. Are you saying that my belief system can't accept being wrong, or that it can't accept that your system of faith & general ideological beliefs could be right? (Asking for clarification, not pointing a stick here.)

(It's a little more wordy, but this style is keeping us from getting tangled up in misunderstandings, I think.)

[smac97]

> This is an interesting point, one I'll ponder as I drive home here in a few minutes. Are you saying that my belief system can't accept being wrong, or that it can't accept that your system of faith & general ideological beliefs could be right? (Asking for clarification, not pointing a stick here.)

==I have made a few assumptions about you: 1) You are nominally LDS; 2) You are either inactive or have serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS Church; 3) your concern about the priesthood ban contributes or contributed to your disaffection from the LDS Church; consequently, 4)

==I suppose I many have misunderstood you. I'd be happy to stand corrected.

-Smac

[Corky Wallace]

Hey Smac,

You're pretty close on your assumptions. I grew up LDS and after a great deal of thought, angst & some amount of time, decided it wasn't for me. I've never been angry enough to have my name removed from the rolls, or to hassle missionaries, etc. At this point I think I'm as "detoxed" as I'll ever be, which I think means I'm past the guilt & self-doubting, but I'm still very interested in things LDS, and of course I'm surrounded by good LDS folks in my neighborhood. I'm kind of an amateur anthropologist & am endlessly fascinated by people, their ideologies, cultures, languages, ethnicity, etc.

Back to our discussion, I think I understand your point on whether I can or can't accept your being correct on a point.

In each of our ideologies there are certain "non-negotiables". For LDS ideology, those might include the certainty that God is communicating with his chosen leaders on earth, that the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through Joseph Smith, etc.

In my ideology (which in this case is that of the non-believer), I could not accept that God is communicating with anyone, let alone the Joseph Smith story.

Now, I think we can agree on some of the "negotiables": for you, perhaps the notion that the blacks / priesthood policy was wrong; for me, that there is much wisdom contained within LDS scripture & ideology, the WOW is generally good advice, the focus on families is a good thing, etc.

However, if I were to assert that the blacks & priesthood policy arose within the minds of man, alone, much like the polygamy practice, tithing and other things, I wouldn't expect for you to accept that. And likewise, if you were to assert that God truly did reveal to Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors and the 12, in the year 1978, that black males were to be treated the same as others, with regard to the priesthood, I just couldn't buy that.

Make sense?

[Beowulf]

Cinepro comments:

I do know some people who believe with all their heart in positions that appear to be defective, but they use what they call "faith" to not let the apparent "defects" bother them.

After all, if the position didn't appear to be defective, why would you need faith to begin with?

I am sorry, but I cannot resist responding to this, which involves a basic misunderstanding of what faith is.

Faith can be confusing even to the most faithful (so-to-speak) members, as you will see from the little anecdote I am about to tell, so the misunderstanding is excusable.

Last Sunday, in HP priesthood meeting, an elderly brother (a former bishop, I gather) said that faith was the power that God used to create the universe. This flustered the teacher, who had just said that faith was NOT knowledge, but he decided to ignore the comment and move on.

I was curious, so I looked up Hebrews 11, where I knew the elderly brother had gotten his quote, and read it: Hebrews 11:3, which states (paraphrasing from memory) that "by faith, we come to understand that God made the Heavens, etc."

Ah hah, I said, the teacher was right and the former bishop was wrong. (I did not interrupt the class, but told the teacher afterward that he was correct. He rolled his eyes.)

In other words, everybody, faith is not knowledge, nor is it desperate grasping at something that we suspect may actually be defective, as Cinepro (and many another secular humanist) wishes to have it. Faith is actually THE FIRST STEP toward knowledge (of God, or of any scientific principle for that matter). A necessary prerequisite, to be sure. The rest of Hebrews 11 then tells us how famous individuals of the past achieved miraculous things through faith, or in other words, through their first steps toward knowledge of God. It is certainly NOT the last resort of a person desperate to deny that his beliefs are defective.

I heartily recommend Hebrews 11, with special attention to ver.3, to which everything else in the chapter is keyed.

(There, just wrote my next Priesthood lesson. Now if somebody would just call on me to give it. )

Beowulf

[mormon fool]

I am sorry, but I cannot resist responding to this, which involves a basic misunderstanding of what faith is.

Faith can be confusing even to the most faithful (so-to-speak) members, as you will see from the little anecdote I am about to tell, so the misunderstanding is excusable.

Last Sunday, in HP priesthood meeting, an elderly brother (a former bishop, I gather) said that faith was the power that God used to create the universe. This flustered the teacher, who had just said that faith was NOT knowledge, but he decided to ignore the comment and move on.

Well just to give a foolish perspective, I think the bishop is interpretting Hebrews 11:3 through a "Lectures on Faith" lens. There we find that faith is referred to as a "principle of action" and no distinction is made between whether the action is to be performed in the presence or absence of knowledge. I think the LOF tends to encourage a knowledge-based faith. Hence we have statements like the following:

7:2

As we have seen in our former lectures that faith is the principle of action and of power in all intelligent beings both in heaven and on earth, it will not be expected that we will attempt to unfold all its effects in a lecture of this description. Neither is it necessary to our purpose so to do, for it would embrace all things in heaven and on earth and encompass all the creations of God with all their endless varieties. For no world has yet been framed that was not framed by faith, neither has there been an intelligent being on any of God's creations who did not get there by reason of faith as it existed in himself or in some other being. Nor has there been a change or a revolution in any of the creations of God but it has been effected by faith. Neither will there be a change or a revolution in any of the vast creations of the Almighty unless it is effected in the same way, for it is by faith that the Deity works.

Edit: Snipped exessive commentary

Later,

fool

[Daniel Peterson]

So your position, or hunch, is that thier reasoning is defective?  Isn't leaving because of "reasoning" (defective or not) an intellectual reason?

A perceptive question. I thought of it when I was writing my post, but was in a hurry and didn't have time to address it in advance.

There are several ways in which reasoning might be defective. It might be that the logic is flawed (i.e., that the conclusion is not logically entailed by the premises). That's presumably what you have in mind. But what I meant was broader. I think that the way we formulate premises, the choices we make of which facts are relevant (i.e., count as premises) and which are not, or which facts trump other facts, are not mere matters of logic but involve the whole personality. And rational thought is only a portion of the human personality. Preferences, precommitments, personal psychology, moods, fatigue, personal history, relationships, emotions, etc., all enter into our decisions, Thus, factors that can mar human thinking include logical fallacies and analytical errors, but are, far and away, not limited to them.

This is scarcely revolutionary.

Why is A completely convinced by argument X, while argument X leaves B, a person of equal intelligence, unmoved?

[Matt Andrews]

There are several ways in which reasoning might be defective. It might be that the logic is flawed (i.e., that the conclusion is not logically entailed by the premises). That's presumably what you have in mind. But what I meant was broader. I think that the way we formulate premises, the choices we make of which facts are relevant (i.e., count as premises) and which are not, or which facts trump other facts, are not mere matters of logic but involve the whole personality. And rational thought is only a portion of the human personality. Preferences, precommitments, personal psychology, moods, fatigue, personal history, relationships, emotions, etc., all enter into our decisions, Thus, factors that can mar human thinking include logical fallacies and analytical errors, but are, far and away, not limited to them.

Fair enough. This is, I think, a reasonable way to think about how someone as (or more) intelligent (or 'worthy') than one's self might come to an erroneous conclusion. Also a good thing to keep in mind regarding our own conclusions.

Why is A completely convinced by argument X, while argument X leaves B, a person of equal intelligence, unmoved?

Well, when person A agrees with me, and B doesn't, clearly it is some mistake on person B's part...

[tapped]

emaughan:

When a prophet opinionates that apple pie is better than cherry it now gospel?

That's an important point. (my way of thinking:) If H.F.'s sayings/ thoughts/principles are important to the people (for them to reach the C.K., for instance)...AND H.F. appoints a spokesperson on earth to announce this... Wouldn't it be incumbent upon the spokesperson NOT to mix-intermingle his/her Personal views/opinions/thoughts with those of his/her Principle?

I just don't see how the listeners could be served by any other approach/method/policy.

Is there a thin line between not deceiving the listeners and the 'right(s)' of the spokesperson to announce his or her own views? Or should the line be clear & plain?

I read in the scriptures that the Lord delights in Plainness (clarity, no ambiguities).

But... that was before I started reading these posts by the apols.

[Blink]

There are several ways in which reasoning might be defective. It might be that the logic is flawed (i.e., that the conclusion is not logically entailed by the premises). That's presumably what you have in mind. But what I meant was broader. I think that the way we formulate premises, the choices we make of which facts are relevant (i.e., count as premises) and which are not, or which facts trump other facts, are not mere matters of logic but involve the whole personality. And rational thought is only a portion of the human personality. Preferences, precommitments, personal psychology, moods, fatigue, personal history, relationships, emotions, etc., all enter into our decisions, Thus, factors that can mar human thinking include logical fallacies and analytical errors, but are, far and away, not limited to them.

When I read this response, I wondered if you'd read the article in this week's US News and World Report, about the role the unconscious mind plays on our decisions, Dan. Among other things, it says:

The realization that our actions may not be the pristine results of our high-level reasoning can shake our faith in the strength of such cherished values as free will, a capacity to choose, and a sense of responsibility over those choices.

Here's the link: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050228/health/28think.htm

[Daniel Peterson]

When I read this response, I wondered if you'd read the article in this week's US News and World Report, about the role the unconscious mind plays on our decisions, Dan.

No, I hadn't read the U.S. News article. But it seems that I should.

I'm not questioning free will, choice, and responsibility, but I do think it unrealistic to believe that very many really substantial and significant human decisions are made solely on the basis of pure rationality.

[Dan Vogel]

Since the opening of this thread, Southerton has added a #9 to his response to FARMS and FAIR. Here is the link for those who want to see this addition.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing2.htm

Also, I have sent Southerton an email with the link to this thread so he can see your responses as well.

[Corky Wallace]

The article Blink referenced is pretty interesting.

Given the complexity of human behavior & cognitive function, it seems a grosteque oversimplification to assign the adjectives "correct" or "defective" to extraordinarily complicated mental processes, thoughts, conclusions, etc.

(Note - I'm not poking at anyone or any side in this observation. I think darn near all of us are guilty of oversimplifying positions fundamentally incongruent with our own.)

[Daniel Peterson]

If a mental process leads to a conclusion that does not in fact match reality, it's incorrect -- however it originated and whatever may have been the factors that affected it. And incorrectness provides presumptive evidence of defect.

[Blink]

If a mental process leads to a conclusion that does not in fact match reality, it's incorrect -- however it originated and whatever may have been the factors that affected it. And incorrectness provides presumptive evidence of defect.

There are those who contend that anyone who concludes that spiritual occurances such as the Ascension, God's visit to Joseph Smith, or angels with flaming swords actually happened is not matching reality. Thus that incorrectness would provide presumptive evidence of defect.

How do you respond to them?

Surely you're exempting spiritual experiences, which are notoriously hard to connect with what the average man would label as "real", from such a presumption, aren't you?

[Corky Wallace]

Hi Dr. Peterson,

I would agree (and I'm deriving value in this exchange).

It would seem there are a variety of contexts where the usage of more precise terminology is more or less well applied.

Certainly, the term "defective" applies well in discussing some things, including mental processes:

- "His decision to operate the car with no oil in the engine would prove to be defective."

But in other context the term is perhaps less well-applied:

- "Her decision to paint the room in mauve was defective. Their decision to purchase a retriever was clearly incorrect."

Certainly there are contexts where great consensus of right & wrong can be arrived at - touching a hot stove, giving illicit drugs to children, killing someone.

However, there are other contexts where consensii (is that the word?) in morality are tougher to pin down - school vouchers in education, how widely the death penalty should be applied (if at all), Ford vs Chevy (vs Honda).

With regard to your own usage of the term in describing the conclusions of some of the characters on the RfM board, I think it is fair to say there is considerable difference of opinion on applicability. From one school of thought, the term may seem readily applicable. From another, it might appear as excessively narrow & judgemental. One of the fascinations of these debates & comparisons.

Just as I might see the choice of wallpaper my sister makes to be inconsequential, she might consider my choice of automobile based on engine technology to be "geeky". However, we both need to be careful in characterizing the others' decision outside our respective areas of interest (interior design & car enthusiasts).

(I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing - just thinking about this stuff between flying my model airplane in the park [dessert first - life's uncertain] and working on some honey-do's. Now, if I end up not getting a sufficient number of honey-do's completed and end up sleeping on the couch, I'll readily concede to having made a defective decision! LOL!)

[Daniel Peterson]

There are those who contend that anyone who concludes that spiritual occurances such as the Ascension, God's visit to Joseph Smith, or angels with flaming swords actually happened is not matching reality. Thus that incorrectness would provide presumptive evidence of defect.

How do you respond to them?

With what are called, among the cognoscenti, discussion, debate, evidence, analysis, and inference to best explanations, as well as with the recognition and allowance that the decision is theirs. Some will be convinced, and some won't. That's, as a matter of fact, pretty much my entire point here. (I think you're looking beyond the mark.)

Surely you're exempting spiritual experiences, which are notoriously hard to connect with what the average man would label as "real", from such a presumption, aren't you?

What "presumption" do you presume that I'm making? Why would you assume that my recognition of the subjectivity of virtually all important decisions collides with the fact that certain important experiences are inescapably subjective (in the sense that they're personal and not fully communicable or transferrable)? Why would you imagine that I need to make some sort of "exception," given my emphasis on personal knowledge, for personal knowledge?

For Corky Wallace: There is no objectively "right" or "wrong" choice about painting a room in mauve (or liking broccoli or preferring Beethoven to Mozart), not even in principle. But there is an objectively right answer to the question of whether the Book of Mormon is or is not ancient, or of whether the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith in his "First Vision." Whether or not the objective truth about these latter questions is easily accessible to us, or even accessible at all, is immaterial. They remain fundamentally different in character than questions about food- or color-preference. They are, instead, very much like the question of whether a car engine will function without oil.

[Corky Wallace]

Dr. Peterson,

Not to be argumentative, but I can think of a scenario where deciding whether or not to paint a room mauve can be a defective choice - if you're an interior designer working for Martha Stewart.

Regarding the objective answer to whether the BOM is historic, I would assert that for millions & millions of Chinese and East Indians, the question & answer are irrelevant, at least in this life.

[Daniel Peterson]

Regarding the objective answer to whether the BOM is historic, I would assert that for millions & millions of Chinese and East Indians, the question & answer are irrelevant, at least in this life.

That has nothing whatever to do with the issue of whether or not an objective answer is at least theoretically possible.

The question of the distance from earth to Alpha Centauri can be objectively answered. Whether hundreds of millions of Chinese, East Indians, Kenyans, Turcoman tribesmen, and Inuit care about that question is irrelevant to the objective character of its answer.

[Blink]

Why would you assume that my recognition of the subjectivity of virtually all important decisions collides with the fact that certain important experiences are inescapably subjective (in the sense that they're personal and not fully communicable or transferrable)?

Then you agree that some important experiences are necessarily and by definition subjective, and none of us is able to give a definitive answer. 12 million Mormons may be wrong. 100 million Catholics may be right. Or we may all be wrong.

So how can your statement: "If a mental process leads to a conclusion that does not in fact match reality, it's incorrect -- however it originated and whatever may have been the factors that affected it. And incorrectness provides presumptive evidence of defect." hold true, for the subjective? How can anyone match reality to that which is inherently unmatchable, due to its subjectivity?

[Corky Wallace]

Dr. Peterson,

I think I misconstrued the point you were making regarding the historicity of the BOM and objectivity. The distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri can be objectively quantified (estimated), but, based on the intercultural connectedness displayed in the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy", I can see this information possibly being relevant to a group of Kenyans, particularly if an interactive internet version of Jeopardy comes about.

(OK, enough silliness)

You're merely stating that this question can be posited for an objective, concrete, binary answer, correct?

I can agree with that.

[Moksha]

When I first heard the expression, "Just because it is made up, does not mean it isn't true", I wasn't sure what to think. Now I am.

I believe we should base our faith on the spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon, and let other tests of accuracy go.

No matter how the Church originated, I remain a member. It is true enough for me.

[TrespassersW]

When I first heard the expression, "Just because it is made up, does not mean it isn't true", I wasn't sure what to think. Now I am.

I believe we should base our faith on the spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon, and let other tests of accuracy go.

No matter how the Church originated, I remain a member. It is true enough for me.

Sometimes I get disturbed by how idiotic some of our critics apparently think we are. At those times, though, I am also comforted by how little their descriptions of our idiocy resembles what I actually believe.